[jump-admins] IPv6 multihoming

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:34:31AM +0000, James A. T. Rice wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> >> No they don't, give them extra separate space.
> >
> > That's just playing pingpong with politics.  "So the routing folks are
> > not able to come up with a recommendation, so we put the pressure on
> > the address policy group to come up with criteria who is allowed to
> > have a second slot in the routing table (and bonus addres space that
> > comes with it!) and who is not".
> >
> > This is the approach that hasn't worked for the last 10 years, which is 
> > why the ball is in the operator's camp now.
> 
> The reason it's not worked for the last 10 years is because if someone 
> deaggregates their /16 into a bunch /24, it simply works. If we make sure 
> it doesn't work, then they won't be able to do it.

I'm specifically talking about IPv6, not about IPv4.  The address policy
community has not been able to come up with useful rules for this seemingly
simple question "who should be able to get a second routing table slot,
plus a big parcel of IPv6 addresses coming with it".

Besides that, it's not the address policy community's *job* to decide 
about *routing table slots*.  That's the routing operator community's
job, to agree upon "who can get what number of slots, for which price".

We (the address policy group) make sure they can get enough addresses
to number their customers and/or sites and/or networks.  A small ISP
that has a /32 has all the addresses they ever need - but they might
need multiple routing table slots.

[..]
> PA is Provider Aggregatable. If a provider can't aggregate the block, make 
> the policy be to give them another one. 

I welcome a specific proposal that enables the RIR hostmasters to make
the decision, under which specific circumstances extra address blocks
should be handed out, and when not.  What's been on the table so far
completely failed to be a) specific enough to be implementable, and 
b) get consensus.

The easiest proposal would be "who asks for a second address block gets
another one", but for some funny reason, not many people seem to think 
that this is a good idea.

Gert Doering
        -- speaking as RIPE address policy wg chair
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20110208/72711d10/attachment.sig>